[quote GrumblyMumblyisnotJumbly]@MRex I absolutely agree as an MP she knew she should self isolate after testing and her actions were inexcusable, she should resign.
Just pointing out that if the testing system worked better and delivered results faster it would (hopefully) stop some of these numbnuts from testing, feeling better, going out and becoming a super-spreader before receiving a positive result. An efficient testing system is one of our best chances of keeping on top of the spread of disease.[/quote]
But the "trigger" to self isolate is getting any of the symptoms (or being identified as a close contact) - not testing positive, or indeed testing at all. Travelling after symptoms developed wouldn't have been OK under any circumstances until she got a negative result or after 10 days, and she knew that. A quicker test result, while obviously nice, is irrelevant to that... and 48hours-ish is fully within the target timescale for getting results back (72 hrs I think). That's not indicative of an inefficient testing scheme, and doesn't excuse her at all.
Other than random population testing (which tracks the prevalence among everyone, including "well" people who may be asymptomatic or pre symptomatic), and targeted testing of everyone in hot-spot areas (to get particular outbreaks under control), symptomatic testing that MF took is really just a "benefit" to us the economy as far as I can see. A negative test lets us go back to work/ school/ shopping/ pubs sooner than 10 days. It doesn't stop the virus spreading. Self isolation does that. Which she didn't do when she knew she was potentially positive but didn't want to isolate for 10 days. I agree testing is critical, and I think more people should be tested, including those without symptoms, or with atypical symptoms to understand the spread, but I don't think resources should be diverted into getting symptomatic results back any quicker than the target for the vast majority of the population.